Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:136523 Court No. - 75 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 20721 of 2025 Applicant :- Firm Star Enterprises And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Amir Khan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J. 1. Heard Sri Amir Khan, learned counsel for the applicants as well as learned AGA for the State. 2. This application u/s 528 of BNSS has been preferred to quash the impugned summoning order dated 09.06.2023 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Court No.4, Mathura and entire proceedings of Complaint Case No.50637 of 2022 (Balveer Singh vs. Firm Star Enterprises and Others), under Section-138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, Police Station- Refinery, District- Mathura, pending before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Court No.4, Mathura, including impugned Non Bailable Warrant dated 08.05.2025 issued by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Court No.4, Mathura. 3. Learned counsel for for the applicants has submitted that on 14.12.2022 a complaint stood lodged by the opposite party no. 2 under Section 138 of the NI Act with respect to discharge of a liability the applicant had drawn a cheque bearing no. 90590 of Rs. 2,50,000/- dated 11.10.2022 which on presentation in the bank on 16.11.2022 was dishonored with remark "payment stopped by the drawer" followed by statutory demand notice dated 25.11.2022 which was replied on 02.12.2022. Thereafter, the applicants came to be summoned on 09.06.2023. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the summoning order cannot be sustained for the simple reason that the cheques which were drawn by the applicant had been lost and a complaints whereof was made before the SSP on 21.09.2022. Submission is that once the cheque stood lost and mis-placed then they were prone to be mis-utilized and actually they were mis-utilized by deploying the novel method of inserting the amounts in figure and words and in getting it dishonored. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that there is no legally enforceable debt or liability so as to invoke the provisions of Section 138 of the NI Act and further there happens to be no relationship either of business or personal with the opposite party no. 2 to the applicants. 4. Learned AGA, on the other hand, submits that once the cheque stood drawn and they came to be dishonored then the presumption under Section 138 of the NI Act would be there. 5. I have heard the submission so made across the bar and perused the record carefully. 6. Apparently, a cheque of an amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- came to be drawn which was dishonored followed by a statutory demand notice which was served and replied by the applicants. The question as to whether the cheque stood mis-utilized post theft of the same is a question of trial, as the same at best can be said to be a defence consideration whereof would be necessitated when raised during the course of the trial with respect to the argument that the applicant had no relationship with the opposite party no. 2 either personally or business is concerned, the same is not required to be gone into at the stage of summoning. Moreover, presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act would already there. 7. Interference declined interference declined, application stands disposed of. Order Date :- 12.8.2025 Rajesh Digitally signed by :- RAJESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad